2016 (10) TMI 782 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court allows input tax credit to dealer despite oversight in notifying change in constitution

Sri Kamatchi Gas Service Kancheepuram Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT)

Sri Kamatchi Gas Service Kancheepuram Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) - TMI Issues:1. Change in constitution of the dealer from proprietorship concern to partnership firm and back to proprietorship concern.2. Failure to intimate the tax department about the change in constitution.3. Denial of input tax credit by the tax department.4. Interpretation of Rule 5(3) and Rule 5(4)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007.5. Legality of reversing input tax credit due to non-intimation of the change in constitution.6. Validity of the tax department's orders for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15.7. Consideration of irregularity versus illegality in the dealer's actions.8. Application of statutory provisions regarding change in constitution of the dealer.Analysis:The judgment of the Madras High Court revolves around the case where a dealer underwent a change in constitution from a proprietorship concern to a partnership firm and then back to a proprietorship concern due to the demise of the original proprietor. The court examined the failure of the dealer to intimate the tax department about this change, leading to the denial of input tax credit by the department for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The court delved into the interpretation of Rule 5(3) and Rule 5(4)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, which mandate the furnishing of details regarding changes in the dealer's constitution to the Registering Authority within a specified time frame.The court analyzed the legality of reversing input tax credit solely based on the non-intimation of the change in constitution, emphasizing the distinction between irregularity and illegality in the dealer's actions. It was observed that the statutory provisions did not explicitly outline the consequences for non-furnishing of information regarding changes in the dealer's constitution. The court highlighted the dealer's continuous compliance with filing returns and paying taxes, despite the procedural oversight in intimating the department about the change.In its decision, the court noted that penalizing the dealer by denying the entire input tax credit for a mere irregularity was unjustified. The court emphasized that the transactions conducted by the dealer, especially in the distribution of LPG as part of the public distribution system, were legitimate and should not be invalidated due to a procedural lapse in intimation. The court also considered the recognition of the dealer by the principal company, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, further supporting the legitimacy of the dealer's operations.Ultimately, the court held that the reversal of input tax credit by the tax department was unsustainable and set aside the impugned orders for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The court concluded that the mistake made by the dealer in not intimating the department about the change in constitution should not warrant such severe penalties, especially when a fresh registration had been granted subsequently. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between irregularities and illegalities in tax matters and upheld the dealer's right to input tax credit in this case.